More modest solution is needed

Speak Out

Nancy McC. Wilson Holden

The Public Safety Building Committee has done a commendable job over the last 18 months. I say that with much respect after spending an afternoon reading the '06, '07 and '08 minutes of their meetings. The committee members (and the loyal citizens who were in frequent attendance) deserve our thanks for the time and care and thoroughness they have given to their assignment: to provide adequate public safety quarters for Holden at a tolerable price.

There's a lot of helpful information in the minutes. The committee considered with care all the sites suggested, applying these criteria: the police station ought to be in full sight on Main Street as a deterrent to mischief; the fire barn needs to be sited in the center of residence population so that the "flame time" - minutes to reach a fire - is as short as possible; primary residential growth for the town will be in the Salisbury Street area (planning board brought in this fact) with 1,000 new houses projected; location near a railroad track puts facility in danger of a possible accident, worst case being derailing of a car of chlorine gas; there's value in location close to the largest population center in town - Wachusett Regional High School; Adams St. site ruled out because railroad bridge underpass is not high enough.

Last spring the committee was giving primary consideration of whether to propose one new facility for both police and fire, or go with separate facilities as exist now. It was noted that if one facility is lost in a calamity, the other would remain. A unanimous vote in March 2007 was for separate facilities. My reading of the minutes missed the overturn of that decision and choice of the single facility proposal before us now. The committee was aware that satellite or sub-fire stations, like the one on Adams Road, will continue to be necessary to meet flame-time standards. The committee was also told of the "critical need" for a new Department of Public Works building, which will be coming before Holden voters soon.

I spotted only one reference to building "green" - a structure to meet the LEEDS standards. The committee was advised that the Commonwealth would soon require such standards for public buildings and to consult Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council for details. My read through the minutes did not find later mention of incorporating energy-saving features.

The facts above are offered as evidence of the good work of the PSBC. I find in their work the seeds of a public safety solution I could support.

I can't support the proposal before us now. We should build green for financial as well as moral reasons. We should continue the tradition of separate facilities. We should avoid taking out yet another good old residence on Main Street (we took out an early 19th century farmhouse to build the '72 police station). For environmental reasons, we should not blacktop additional acreage in the Tannery Brook watershed. We should not place a megabuilding along Main Street where 2,200 students and staff already complicate traffic measured in the '90s at 17,000 cars daily. Finally, we must respect the financial hardships faced by many Holden households and come up with a more modest solution.